Taylor GT Bracing Pattern - Does it look stable to you?

[jonfields45]

This was posted in the general discussion forum. I wonder what the luthiers of the AGF make of this asymmetrical (not just the tone bars) pattern.

[printer2]

They saved half their V. Reduced Production Costs!!!

Soon they will eliminate that one and be back to ladder braced.

[Nahil.R]

Looks as though they tossed all the braces in the air; and however they landed was the pattern they used!

[phavriluk]

Interesting. Brace on the bass side, and bracing is asymmetrical overall. Sure gets the name mentioned.

[Taylor Ham]

For Taylor's factory process, I really don't think reducing the amount of bracing material reduces production costs, unless it's a ridiculous number like 0 or 1 braces. They don't hand shape braces, and they're all glued at once under a vaccum membrane. And even then, it's just one part of the guitar.

To me, it looks like at least some attention was paid to the bracing layout. The main C brace is wider than what I've seen on the main V braces, but probably not alot taller, from the thru soundhole shots I've seen. Neither is the central transverse brace, which is at a neat 90 deg to the C brace. This maintains the overall stiffness to resist the moment on the bridge, but distributes it differently to open up other areas of the top. It's extremely unlikely that we'll ever see a ladder braced Taylor, because that gets rid of the whole longitudinal stiffness idea of the C and V patterns.

The finger braces on either side control the remaining stiffness to reach the structural requirement and the tonal target in mind.

Structurally speaking the V and C braces are obviously far superior to the X brace. The X brace was invented as a compromise.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

I wonder what the luthiers of the AGF make of this asymmetrical (not just the tone bars) pattern.

Given that Taylor will make thousands of these and people are buying them and playing them, as long as they are structurally sound - i.e. lasts long enough - it is successful.

Given that, they make - and sell - more of those guitars in an hour than the number of guitars I will make in my lifetime. So any opinion I have on the design is so less than relevant as to be comical. It'd be like the flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog.

There is nothing new about the use of asymmetric bracing patterns.

[Willie_D]

I'm certain that Taylor is willing to risk its reputation as one of the top-selling guitar manufacturers in the US by selling fundamentally unstable instruments.

[redir]

Ladder bracing has been around for a long time. They do have stability issues though. I'm not sure what Taylor is trying to do there but my guess is it still sounds like a guitar.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by Taylor Ham

For Taylor's factory process, I really don't think reducing the amount of bracing material reduces production costs, unless it's a ridiculous number like 0 or 1 braces.

Was hoping the exclamation marks showed the remark was made in jest, darn.

[Taylor Ham]

Originally Posted by printer2

Was hoping the exclamation marks showed the remark was made in jest, darn.

You may not be surprised, some in the forum have actually argued Taylor pushed thru the V brace just to save time and materials.

[Skarsaune]

Originally Posted by Taylor Ham

Structurally speaking the V and C braces are obviously far superior to the X brace. The X brace was invented as a compromise.

I'm not seeing how the C is "obviously far superior". Particularly in resisting the moment of the bridge. The treble side of the bridge looks rather unsupported in the one photo.

[Taylor Ham]

Originally Posted by Skarsaune

I'm not seeing how the C is "obviously far superior". Particularly in resisting the moment of the bridge. The treble side of the bridge looks rather unsupported in the one photo.

Having the top as a unit resist the moment of the bridge is IMO a partial understanding of bracing. better wording escapes me, I'm not trying to put down X bracing + tone bars because it's a specific compromise that achieves a specific tone best. But that combo leaves mostly the thin top itself to control the local deformation at the edges of the bridge, especially at the back edge. If the tone bars are replaced with something like PRS / edwinson fan bracing, or even the big beams of C or V class, the local deformation can be minimized better. So I believe the bracing can be lightened or changed more elsewhere, while maintaining structural integrity at the point of highest stress.

For the C class specifically, the same worries popped into my head. I think if the stiffness is carefully distributed around the bridge and by the bridge itself, the main C brace still works fine. We've only seen the shadow of this bracing, so the height of the braces remains unknown. But I'm confident AP and Taylor wouldnt put out a structurally unsound design. They torture test all of their designs in a humidity and temp controlled chamber. So whatever the height of the braces is, it's almost certainly enough. Of course I'm happy to be proven wrong, but the V brace looks intuitively more stable to me.

[jonfields45]

I stopped into the local Guitar Center this afternoon to kill some time. Someone must have forgotten to tell them they were going bankrupt as they were busy putting out a lot of new stock which happened to include a Rosewood GS mini, two Koa GS minis, and even a GT!

I picked out the spruce top GS mini, the new GT, and a Martin 000XAE spruce top to run a rotation. All three guitars were similar in volume. The GT had a very even tone, the GS mini had a pronounced midrange, and the Martin split the difference. I think you could choose to like any of the three the best. I could probably find my way to the GT with a bit more time to train my ear.

The GT won my admiration for being light as a feather compared to the other two. It was a little disconcerting looking in the GT and see the white unstained Ash. The Eucalyptus fingerboard had a very nice looking grain. I assume Taylor knows how to stabilize that wood for this purpose.

To my eye, V-class looks like old fashioned Orville Gibson tone bars (for more recent examples that predate V-class consider the T5 and Godin A6 Ultra). C class looks like a single tone bar. The GT's top had a tighter radius than the GS mini and much tighter than the Martin. That could be the current state of it's humidification, but it looked to me like a design decision to stiffen the single tone bar top. If it is for tone or structure reasons I can't guess. The top showed perfect side-to-side symmetry and no hint of only one side getting the tone bar (at least for now).

Overall I think it is a really nice little guitar to plug the missing 0 or Parlor size in their USA lineup.